Gun ownership in this day and age

[tafan2]

to be clear, you would ban guns from those who need them. a woman who is being threatened by her ex would not be allowed a gun to defend herself.

Why notl? To be clear, I did not say that in my proposals. If you imply that I think hand guns should take another level of license than a hunting shotgun. That does not say that.

 

[GKMotley]

I’d still rather face a knife over a gun.

I would too. If he’s over 21 feet away. And my reaction time is not what it once was. Make that 25 feet.

 

[tafan2]

And so am I, never had the least desire to be a politician.
And this is as good a place as any to bid this thread adieu.

 

[upant]

You originally stated per head of population there is more knife crime however, your own link highlights this inaccuracy. My link also shows you this is simply not true at all.

nope, i said violent crime was higher. this includes crimes besides knife crimes and it is true by the site stating it had 1.4M violent crimes.

 

[prayerrider]

1.5 seconds, eh?. That’s how long it takes the average motivated perp to cover 21 feet. That’s how quick we’re supposed to be able to pull and fire. Takes lots of practice. I can maybe hip fire that fast.

 

[GKMotley]

One reason I stay at home a lot.

Also, there’s all these books that need reading.

 

[Pattylt]

This thread has been an interesting read. It brought a few questions into my head that some may be able to answer?

First, I am a law abiding 66yo female gun owner. I have no problem if I would be required to register my guns or have to deal with a delay in purchasing one within reason. I haven’t bought a gun in years and none of mine are currently registered.

My thoughts…any new laws going forward will do nothing to remove guns from criminals. Guns last along time.

Does having more armed civilians reduce gun violence? Or would it put even more civilians in danger if many of those civilians aren’t properly trained? Should armed citizens be required to have training in crowd control or using a weapon in a public context? Link to any studies on this?

With all our new technology, is there anything that can be added to guns going forward that could limit the damage of mass shooters? I’ve no idea…just a thought…a chip that makes a 5 second delay after say 3rounds were shot?

Finally, what actually works? Do we know anything that statistically lowers the use of guns on innocent people that could actually work? If single parent people are much more likely to commit a mass shooting, should we require a stricter requirement on single parented people?

It seems we need to be doing something but I agree, just making more regulations that only honest citizens would follow anyway seems useless. What might work?

 

[Odilon]

Wow, a Walther for 99 bucks and a Mauser for 25. Now that’s what I call a good deal.

 

[prayerrider]

Lol all you need now is a time machine.

 

[prayerrider]

Seriously I’m just about to swear off semis. I’m better with the cotton pickin’ cowboy single actions, iron sights and all. Makes no sense!

 

[prayerrider]

66 year old lady? You’re just a kid.
You need a Taylor’s Runnin’ Iron!

 

[Sftyvlv1]

Thanks for the suggestions. I might just build myself a “bump” or “slam” gun.
I do value my wife’s opinion, and maybe for the safety of my family “no news is good news”.

 

[Sftyvlv1]

Sorry folks, if someone wants somebody dead they will find a way.
Guns, knives, hammer to the head, car, poison they all can kill and will be used if the other isn’t available.
An inanimate object cannot kill, only when in the control of a person looking to do so, will that come about.

 

[neophyte]

Thanks for the suggestions. I might just build myself a “bump” or “slam” gun.

They’re great if you want to burn ammo and make noise. Not so much if you want a serious defense weapon, too much ammo spent off-target.

 

[Cruciferi]

Using Southern drawl: “Ah cain use mah Gawd given raaght to shoot mah truck when Ah want to!”

Oh, that’s not disparaging at all…

But the most important part is that the owners are civilized.

Are you saying that people in the US aren’t civilized?

 

[vz71]

Are you saying that people in the US aren’t civilized?

No, just those of us with a southern accent.

 

[GKMotley]

Not exactly. The weapons you are thinking of are under lock and key. In the citizens’ homes. The ammo is under lock and key. In the armories. Used to be otherwise. And there are exceptions.

Using my charming Southern drawl, there.

 

[neophyte]

People can get upset, and if there is weapon close to their hands, they might use it.

Might, but the vast majority of the time they don’t, and you can’t infringe on people’s rights merely because someone might abuse them.

And guns kill from a distance, so weaklings and cowards can use it, too.

Again, you can’t infringe on people’s rights merely because someone might abuse them.

The problem is the Wild West mentality, the “worshipping” of firearms.

Crime rates in the so-called “Wild West” were actually pretty low. And no one worships firearms, you’re not doing your position any favors by dredging up fabricated slanders.

Using Southern drawl: “Ah cain use mah Gawd given raaght to shoot mah truck when Ah want to!”

Bigoted mockery of other people’s accents doesn’t help either.

In Switzerland everyone has weapons,

And yet crime rates are very low. That’s a clue that crime is not caused by people owning weapons.

because everyone is part of the defensive forces.

All males from the ages of 18 to 45 are in the US as well.

And all the weapons are under lock and key,

Not exactly.

What you don’t know about gun ownership in Switzerland could easily fill a chapter of a book.

 

[prayerrider]

Ha, I see whatcha did there. Though there are now six, seven, and even eight round DA revolvers (“assault” revolvers). Most snubbies are still five, though.

 

[Mark121359]

tafan2:

Here is a rough list of what I would propose:

Fortunately you’re not in charge.

A HUGE amen to that!!!